To protect marriage, ban divorce
The campaign to grant full equality to gays and lesbians suffered another blow earlier this week when the New York state legislature voted against same-sex marriage. It was a disappointment; marriage-equality proponents believed they had the votes to pass the measure.
According to The New York Times,
The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.
The measure was defeated by the usual combination of craven legislators and fear-mongering social conservatives who claimed that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would destroy traditional marriage. That argument continues to claim adherents, even though it has never made any sense. Traditional marriage has been in decline for decades — and gays and lesbians have nothing to do with it. (I know gays and lesbians had nothing to do with the dissolution of my marriage.)
However, if social conservatives are going to continue to fight marriage equality on the grounds that it would destroy traditional marriage, they ought to be willing to make a dramatic move to protect traditional marriage: ban divorce. About half of all marriages in this country end in divorce, and banning it would do more to (artificially) shore up the marriage rate than anything else.
So, a California man is trying to put an initiative to ban divorce on the ballot in that state.
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that’s the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.
“Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more,” the 38-year-old married father of two said.
Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative’s Facebook fans have swelled to more than 11,000. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.
If social conservatives are serious about “protecting marriage,” they’ll work hard to ban divorce and the initiative will pass.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
216 comments Add your comment
Turd Feguson
December 4th, 2009
7:57 am
“It was a disappointment” Not really…it was, at the very least, expected.
Peadawg
December 4th, 2009
7:57 am
That’s pushing it to the extreme, Cynthia. What if your husband(if someone will even put of with you in the first place) has an affair. If this passes, you’re forced to stay w/ him while he sleeping w/ other women on the side. What if you’re husband(again, if someone will even put up with you) comes home drunk every night after 15 years of marriage and beats you…you’re stuck w/ him. Think about it.
Peadawg
December 4th, 2009
7:58 am
And if I’m not mistaken, the first gay couple to marry in Massachusetts(I think) is already divorced. Looks like gays aren’t doing much better.
jt
December 4th, 2009
8:02 am
CT- You lefties always espouse the “nanny state”. Why complain when you get it. Following is a Washington State Supreme court lawyer who gets it. Marraige should NOT be any business of the state or federal government.
They only have as much power as you let them.
“What we are called upon to do here is address the availability of the civilcontract of marriage–the only characterization of the issue presented that permits governmental intrusion into what is otherwise a personal, private relationship between two people. The State’s intrusion is governed by the articles of our constitution.
What we ought not to address is marriage as the sacrament or religious rite–an area into which the State is not entitled to intrude at all and which is governed by articles of faith. What we have not done is engage in the kind of critical analysis the makers of our constitution contemplated when interpreting the limits on governmental intrusion into private civil affairs; what we have done is permit the religious and moral strains of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to justify the State’s intrusion. As succinctly put by amici the Libertarian Party of Washington State and the Log Cabin Republicans of Washington: “To ban gay civil marriage because some, but not all, religions disfavor it, reflects an impermissible State religious establishment.” Amicus Curiae Br. of the Libertarian Party of Washington State et al. at 11. After all, we permit civil divorce though many religions prohibit it–why such fierce protection of marriage at its beginning but not its end? “
Vinny
December 4th, 2009
8:37 am
Is this all you could come up with Cynthia? Do they actually pay you to write this drivel?
lovelyliz
December 4th, 2009
8:38 am
Don’t just ban divorce. Keep it going by denying benefits to anyone who is divorced and officially basterdizing their children. You could even require folks like Newt Gingrich to go back to spouse #1.
Turd Feguson
December 4th, 2009
8:50 am
Retro? Oh no!
Chris Broe
December 4th, 2009
9:25 am
Cynthia Tucker is…..WRONG! The Civil Rights struggle got a great boost this week when former “Family Ties” star Meridith Baxter-Birney admitted her latency. (She’s now in it to win it).
Meridity Baxter Birney. I’m going to howl at the moon for a long, long time.
Jesus is a False Messiah
December 4th, 2009
9:25 am
Right-Wing Born-Again Hypocrites-here’s your chance to defend the sanctity of marriage…
Joan
December 4th, 2009
9:28 am
I get a laugh when 60 somethings admit they have become gay. For goodness sake, how many 60 somethings are sexually active anyway, and isn’t this a little silly.
Joan
December 4th, 2009
9:31 am
Cynthia is always name calling anyone she doesn’t agree with. Very juvenile behaviour and beneath a columnist–one would think. Anyway, why aren’t civil unions enough for perverts? Why do they have to stomp on the word marriage as part of their goal? They get the financial benefits of marriage–that is what is most important to them anyway. Is there some reason gays can’t just compromise? God knows they have compromised their very souls. About marriage–I would lay odds good ole Cyn could never find a man to marry her.
I never see my posts
December 4th, 2009
9:32 am
Improving the balance of justice as it applies to divorce and domestic relations would better address the increasing rate of divorce. One side vs the other is often using the courts to address matters that two half way reasonable adults should be able to work out. However, when the other can leverage the eyes wide open unbalanced judicial system to invoke in a large number of cases, undo stress and retaliation against the other party, why be reasonable? Does not matter make up of the union! That too is a personal matter!
Mr. Nobody
December 4th, 2009
9:32 am
“fear-mongering social conservative”…NICE. CT, why is it that you lib-tards want to change things so bad, even though those “things” work in everyone’s best interest?
TGT
December 4th, 2009
9:34 am
As a “fear-mongering social conservative” I agree that making divorce much more difficult would be a wise move. However, a complete ban is both unwise and unnecessary.
DannyX
December 4th, 2009
9:34 am
Absolutely, yes, its time for a divorce ban!
God created “Adam and Eve,” NOT, “Adam and Eve then Cindy.”
Divorce is a CHOICE.
Jesus hates divorce. He said so himself. Its in the Bible.
I think for the most part Americans are too forgiving when it comes to divorced people, surely we have become too comfortable with divorce. “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” has become “love the sinner, love the sin.”
Stop divorce NOW! Before its too late. If we don’t defend marriage NOW people will end up to marrying/divorcing their pet dogs and cats.
Do it for the children! Do it for God. Ban divorce NOW!
ctucker
December 4th, 2009
9:38 am
Joan,
Is the word “pervert” not name-calling?
ken ross
December 4th, 2009
9:41 am
This is another Pulitzer moment. I can’t wait for the liberals to approve of men & sheep marriages or women & donkeys.
Let’s be honest here, there is something wrong with gay people when it comes to their sexual behavior, this is why I don’t approve of their marriage.
If all people were gay the world would end in 100 years because they couldn’t re-produce, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Peadawg
December 4th, 2009
9:42 am
DannyX, “Do it for the children! Do it for God. Ban divorce NOW!”
I don’t wish anything bad on anyone…this is just to prove a point. I hope you’re wife cheats on you everyday and you can’t do anything about it. Totally banning divorce is just plain stupid.
skee
December 4th, 2009
9:42 am
How subtle satan works his way thru the nain stream media by trying to make one thing seem ok by making another seem outrageous. We all need to work harder on our traditional family values.
Ray Pugh
December 4th, 2009
9:48 am
Oh those traditional family values, like those espoused in the Book of Old Testament or the Koran? Tell me skee, do you force your wife to sleep in a tent in the backyard when she’s on her period?
Mary wasn't a Virgin
December 4th, 2009
9:49 am
Conservative Christians are obsessed with sex. That’s why they sit in bathroom stalls tapping their feet or take long romantic walks on the Appalachian Trail….
Peadawg
December 4th, 2009
9:51 am
“Conservative Christians”
What’s the difference between a “Conservative Christian” and a “Liberal Christian”??? This is to you too Cynthia, I would love to hear your answer.
skee
December 4th, 2009
9:51 am
Yes, exactly like in the bible. And no I don’t make my husband go elsewhere to watch football.
jt
December 4th, 2009
9:52 am
I normally agree with Joan, but………….
Cynthia is a very attractive lady.
A little looney with politics, but most women are. (remember, I said most, not all).
Sunshine and Thunder
December 4th, 2009
9:53 am
Just ban banning and forget it.
Joan
December 4th, 2009
9:53 am
Cyn: I don’t think so. Pervert is an apt descriptor, a noun, defined as “a person who practices sexual perversion.” It is not like “craven legislators”, “fear-mongering”, which are epithets having no proven basis, other than your point of view–which, let me take a leaf from your book and name-call, is a bit jaundiced. My opinion.
Mr. Nobody
December 4th, 2009
9:57 am
Tucker, to answer you question directed toward Joan…NO! Refer to def. #3. This is referring to the sexual reproductive organs people.
Pervert-
tr.v. per•vert•ed, per•vert•ing, per•verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort: an analysis that perverts the meaning of the poem.
n. (pûrvûrt)
One who practices sexual perversion.
Puritanical Righteous Repub
December 4th, 2009
9:58 am
We need to burn divorcees at the stake, treat them like the witches in Salem-Satan needs a boot in his arse….
Pervert
December 4th, 2009
10:00 am
Jesus luvs me yes I know, for the Bible tell me so.
JESUS LOVES ME BEST
December 4th, 2009
10:04 am
PEADAWG: I don’t see what the problem is – right wing conservative christian republican mennever cheat on their wives (they never physically or emotionally abuse them either)
VINNY: you are on the wrong page – you are supposed to be reading Kyle Wingfield’s drivel, not Cynthia Tucker’s. Kyle uses smaller words for you.
DONAVAN: the bible says you are not supposed to eat fish. Do you eat fish? It also has this neat little passage, commonly referred to as THE GOLDEN RULE, otherwise translated as QUIT TRYING TO SHOVE YOUR NARROW MINDED WORLD VIEW DOWN OTHER PEOPLE’S THROATS. You don’t want to be with a man? Don’t. How hard is that? (though for you painfully repressed christers, apparently it is pretty hard. All you ever seem to think about is gay butt sex. Why is that?)
JOAN: GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN WHERE YOU BELONG, AND STOP PRETENDING TO TRY AND THINK.
KEN ROSS: you can’t wait to approve sheep marriage, eh? why is that? got your eye on a special little Ewe? Just make sure it is a girl sheep, and not a boy sheep, or you will be sinning in the eyes of your narrow minded bigot of a god.
SKEE: why do you and your ilk insist on forcing your pathetic miserable lives down other peoples throats? WHY? are you so unhappy that you need others to be miserable? Or is it that you are just too insecure in your own religious conviction that you need the comfort of other sheep? Maybe Ken Ross can introduce you to a nice one you can marry.
TO ALL CHRISTERS: STFU – WE DON’T NEED YOU TELLING US HOW TO LIVE, GET IT? UNTIL YOUR DIVORCE RATE, STD RATE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RATE, TAX EVASION RATE, PERJURY RATE AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT DEFAULT RATE IS ZERO, YOU ARE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY HYPOCRITES.
Peadawg
December 4th, 2009
10:08 am
“why do you and your ilk insist on forcing your pathetic miserable lives down other peoples throats?”
Who’s the one w/ gay pride parades? Do we have “Straight pride” parades? Who’s the one w/ gay day(that day a few months ago where all gays called in sick to work). If a straight man plays hooky and gets caught, he’s usually fired. That kinda sounds like forces your pathetic miserable lives down others throats, doesn’t it?
And as for the day where gays called into work…that sounds like special rights to me…not equal rights. Just sayin……
Shawny
December 4th, 2009
10:11 am
No one is interested in driving numbers.
No heteroes who are opposed to gay marriage feel that it does anything to threaten their marriage, or any one else’s marriage. What they do believe, is that a union of two that are gay isn’t marriage by definition. Most actually aren’t opposed to such a union.
DannyX
December 4th, 2009
10:14 am
A conservative Christian might be one who protects the sanctity of marriage by having an affair with a major industry lobbyist.
A conservative Christian might also be a Senator secretly tapping away in a public bathroom.
A conservative Christian may be trying to lure alter boys, while preaching traditional values.
A conservative Christian may see Purple Teletubbies, and God guided hurricanes.
A conservative Christian might fly often to Argentina. He may wear diapers while having sex with prostitutes.
A conservative Christian may speak out against homosexuality at his 20,000,000 member strong mega Christian church, then go out for a “massage” and some meth.
A conservative Christian may be on long books tours trying to explain all the “perverted” underage sex going on in her family values family.
A conservative Christian probably wants to defy God by allowing public prayer.
A conservative Christian may think you shouldn’t by a beer on Sunday, would rather you get drunk at a Gwinnett Braves game for example and drive home drunk.
A conservative Christian most surely does hate all of the undocumented Christian immigrants from the south that wash our dishes and build our houses.
Mr. Nobody
December 4th, 2009
10:17 am
Jesus loves me best- Jesus forgives you, atheist lib-tard …even Stephen Hawking concluded that the beginning of the universe had to have been a miracle of GOD…so, HA. Besides, the bible is a good reference and guide on how to live your life.
jack
December 4th, 2009
10:23 am
Note to social conservatives
I understand your little pea brains don’t get it. Cynthia was being facetious (I know you don’t understand big words, sorry). It means she was saying something that she didn’t mean so you would… what I am doing, you’ll never get irony either.
Let’s try this. Cynthia is pointing out that “marriage” is a FINANCIAL contract between two people. They make a financial agreement about their lives. If you don’t believe this, get a divorce and you will see marriage has nothing to do with God or love or the union between a man and a woman… the judge will focus on MONEY.
Cynthia is pointing out that social conservatives, for all their blather about marriage, get divorced – a LOT (e.g. Ronald Reagan- 2 wives; Newt – 3 wives; Bob Barr 2 or 3 I lost count).
Her point is that Americans should be able to enter into this financial contract (called marriage) whatever their sexual orientation.
Sorry for using big words that are beyond your 3rd grade understanding.
Turd Feguson
December 4th, 2009
10:28 am
Joan
December 4th, 2009
9:31 am
Hmmm…I wouldnt go that far. Cynthia is an attractive woman. I wouldnt mind dating her and possibly marrying her, once we get to know one another *wink*, but it would never last.
Our political views are so far apart the relationship would probably be a constant yet sad battle and soon find itself disentegrating under the ever so Stinky water of the ALMIGHTY TOILET.
PS…I prefer the old AJC picture when she had the “bangs” action goin on!!
Allen
December 4th, 2009
10:28 am
Democrats get divorced just like the rest of society do. What does divorce have to do with what religion or party you are from? If we allow gays to marry then you might as well allow someone to “marry” his/her friends just for the tax and healthcare benefits. And why not allow people to marry pets or better yet rocks, just for the benefits? Can you imagine the frauds that would go on. And guess what, when straight John marries his best buddy straight Mike just for the benefits then turns around and gets an immediate divorce, we all pay through passed down costs. Marriage is merely a union by definition and gays need to get over it and just continue to be called partners.
Turd Feguson
December 4th, 2009
10:29 am
jack
December 4th, 2009
10:23 am
Thanks jack…might I borrow a dictionary AND thesaurus
JackLeg
December 4th, 2009
10:33 am
I do believe that there is nothing wrong with gay/lesbian civil union, which has all the same legal ramifications of a marriage. The problem is people like CT who want it all and want it their way, and if we don’t get it then you are a racist. I do believe that the issue has everything to do with the definition of marriage as defined in a religious point of view. Marriage is a sacrament from the Church as defined by the Church, originally. So you far leftwing nut losers really want to let gay/lesbian to get all the rights afforded to conventionally married couples wake up, call it a civil union. Then the right wing nuts will have nothing to say about it. Come on you lefties know how to “Change” the wording to make it sound like something it is not, like Cap and Trade, which really means new taxes for everybody, or the fairness doctrine, which is everything but far, or global warming, oopps climate change, or the reality that the polar ice caps have been melting since the last ice age 100,000 years ago, so why not call it what it is, a new way for the left to tax you.
Chris Broe
December 4th, 2009
10:35 am
Cynthia T is the most patient, forgiving blog host of all time.
My dog is smarter than your honor student
December 4th, 2009
10:40 am
The trick here is in the choice of words. All “marriages” are “civil unions” yet all “civil unions” are not “marriages.” The govt forcing a religious group to perform a ceremony that is contrary to their dogma should never happen. It is also important to recognize that this street does go both ways – a church’s dogma should not be pushed on the govt or “non-believers” for that matter.
I am a conservative…yet I have no problem with “Adam and Steve” or “Cindy and Eve” – whatever they want to do behind closed doors is up to you as long as it is between consenting adults. IMNSHO, civil unions should be granted with all of the equal protections of property, insurance, etc… to two consenting adults.
People like Donovan and Joan will always be around shilling about immorality and the what-ifs of people marrying animals. They do it because…well…lets just say that they have TMJ.
Keep your filthy interpretation of god out of my life, and I wont have to embarass you in front of everyone.
Durwood
December 4th, 2009
10:52 am
The definition of marriage is one man and one woman The creator designed marriage as a dramatization of Christ and His Church. A homosexual marriage would not be a marriage, even if man deems it so because it cannot dramatize this beautiful relationship. Homosexuals already have marriage equality. They can marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. The re-definition of marriage by man’s standards will also lead to people marrying their animals. It’s already being discussed. A society that does not have strong families, men, women and children as the basic unit of government cannot survive. You can’t change the engineering specifications of a corvette based upon public opinion and expect it to run. Neither will a society run on anything other than the specifications of the one who designed it.
fer
December 4th, 2009
10:57 am
There are an awful lot of people on here who don’t “get it”.
Chris Salzmann
December 4th, 2009
10:58 am
Joan December 4th, 2009 9:31 am SAID: Cynthia is always name calling anyone she doesn’t agree with. Very juvenile behaviour and beneath a columnist–one would think. Anyway, why aren’t civil unions enough for perverts? Why do they have to stomp on the word marriage as part of their goal? They get the financial benefits of marriage–that is what is most important to them anyway. Is there some reason gays can’t just compromise?
CHRIS SAYS: Marriage is what is recognized by the state as a legal union. You can get married in as many churches as you want, but if you don’t file your papers at the local courthouse, then your marriage isn’t worth a nickel. If you don’t understand that simple fact, you must be pretty dense.
Joan December 4th, 2009 9:31 am SAID: God knows they have compromised their very souls. About marriage–I would lay odds good ole Cyn could never find a man to marry her.
CHRIS SAYS: Compromised their very souls??? LMAO!!! Joan, did you know that homosexuality is just as prevalent in the animal kingdom as it is among humans? The Bible also mentions divorce more often than it mentions homosexuality. Cynthia makes a good point: If you so much want to protect “traditional” marriage, why not take the step and ban divorce? Wouldn’t that be the ultimate defense of that “sacred” union? Ooops, sorry but that would prove rather troublesome to us straight couples, wouldn’t it? No one has explained to me how the gay or lesbian couple living next-door or down the street from me getting married and having their union recognized by the state would make my marriage less meaningful. Maybe Joan suffers from a massive inferiority complex that she feels this would hurt her marriage. Sad that her marriage has such shallow foundations.
Jess
December 4th, 2009
11:02 am
Cynthia,
The idea that all social conservatives are in lock step or all social liberals think the same is a hugh blind spot in your understanding of what goes on around you. I am very conservative, but do not care if gays marry. I know many social liberals who are opposed to gay marriage.
I say we should go the other way and make marriage between any two people legal. If a man has a sister with children and no medical coverage, marry her put her on his coverage. If we are going to change the definition of who can marry, why stop at gays.
RepublicanBaptistMale
December 4th, 2009
11:03 am
It is funny that people like Cynthia just cannot come to grips with the FACT that the most Americans don’t like gays and lesbians, don’t want them teaching our children, don’t want them leading our churches, don’t want them leading our scout troops. The numbers do not lie. Most efforts to change the laws have been defeated with a resounding “no”. Maybe Cynthia and the others should just get a clue…you and your life style are just not accepted.
Chris Salzmann
December 4th, 2009
11:08 am
Durwood December 4th, 2009 10:52 am SAID: The definition of marriage is one man and one woman …….. A society that does not have strong families, men, women and children as the basic unit of government cannot survive.
CHRIS SAYS: So its about procreation, eh? Okay, so lets ban marriage when couples don’t intend having children. Perhaps, both men and women should submit fertility tests to ensure that they can procreate before the state hands them a marriage license. Strong families? That says you agree that divorce should be banned. Based on your outdated and biblical sense of logic it makes perfect sense!!!! ROFLMAO
Turd Feguson
December 4th, 2009
11:08 am
“CHRIS SAYS: Compromised their very souls??? LMAO!!! Joan, did you know that homosexuality is just as prevalent in the animal kingdom as it is among humans?”
LOL…NO, it isnt. You sound more like that bag full of hot air, The Goron…LOL.
mhs4
December 4th, 2009
11:10 am
To protect intelligence, ban Cynthia.
Chris Salzmann
December 4th, 2009
11:12 am
RepublicanBaptistMale December 4th, 2009 11:03 am SAID: It is funny that people like Cynthia just cannot come to grips with the FACT that the most Americans don’t like gays and lesbians, don’t want them teaching our children, don’t want them leading our churches, don’t want them leading our scout troops. The numbers do not lie. Most efforts to change the laws have been defeated with a resounding “no”. Maybe Cynthia and the others should just get a clue…you and your life style are just not accepted.
CHRIS SAYS: Yeah, and about 40 years ago,the overwhelming majority of Southerners did not want desegregation, were strongly against interracial marriage, and thought the Black race was inferior in every way. Your point being or do you even have one?